Auckenthaler v. Grundmeyer
110 Nev. 682, 877 P.2d 1039 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Nevada, the standard of care applicable to participants in recreational activities is ordinary negligence, not a heightened standard of reckless or intentional conduct, because the state's comparative negligence statute has abolished the doctrine of implied assumption of risk.
Facts:
- Lori S. Auckenthaler, Steven Grundmeyer, and Jody White were part of a group on a recreational horseback ride for 'field training' dogs.
- White was riding a horse named 'Bum,' which was owned by Grundmeyer.
- During the ride, Bum, who had been recently gelded, was acting antsy, nervous, and had been threatening to kick other horses that came near.
- Auckenthaler was injured when the horse she was riding came too close to Bum.
- Bum turned and kicked Auckenthaler's horse, striking Auckenthaler in the leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Lori S. Auckenthaler filed a negligence suit against Jody White and Steven Grundmeyer in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- White and Grundmeyer moved for summary judgment, arguing for a 'reckless or intentional conduct' standard of care.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of White and Grundmeyer, dismissing Auckenthaler's complaint.
- Auckenthaler, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the ordinary negligence standard of care, rather than a standard of reckless or intentional conduct, apply to injuries sustained during a recreational activity in Nevada?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the ordinary negligence standard of care applies to injuries sustained during a recreational activity in Nevada. The court rejected the heightened 'reckless or intentional' standard adopted from California law, reasoning that such a standard is fundamentally based on the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk. Nevada precedent, specifically Mizushima v. Sunset Ranch, explicitly abrogated all forms of implied assumption of risk, holding that they are subsumed by the state's comparative negligence statute. The court concluded that adopting a reduced standard of care for recreational activities would be a 'back door' reintroduction of this abolished doctrine. It held that the traditional negligence standard is sufficiently flexible, allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant's conduct was reasonable under the specific circumstances of the recreational activity, thus striking a proper balance between encouraging vigorous participation and holding individuals accountable for unreasonable behavior.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Nevada's complete rejection of the implied assumption of risk doctrine, refusing to create a special liability carve-out for recreational and sporting activities that many other jurisdictions have adopted. By mandating a simple negligence standard, the court ensures that juries, rather than judges through a categorical rule, will determine liability by assessing the reasonableness of a participant's conduct within the context of the specific activity. This approach prioritizes the principles of Nevada's comparative negligence framework over policy arguments about 'chilling' athletic competition. The ruling creates a clear split from jurisdictions like California that use assumption of risk to bar negligence claims for injuries inherent in a sport, making it easier for plaintiffs in Nevada to survive summary judgment in such cases.
Unlock the full brief for Auckenthaler v. Grundmeyer